H^5p
llSIS^
ON IS-SltiU'ii.
■^Tt Harden bnrg
^tatE (EolUge of Agcicultutc
At Cfocnell UniucrBita
Jtljara, &". f .
Hihratg
"^JSSjKI^I-Ve'flc/ency as applied,
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000358063
A MIUOR THESIS
OH
POTATO MAGHIHERY SFFICIEIIGY
A3 APPLIED TO
PRODUCTION lU STEUBEU GOUSTY.
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of
Cornell University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science in Agriculture
tjy
Earle Volcart Hardenburg, B. S. ,
1915.
ACiaiOt7L£DGl.lENTS.
The writer here wishes to express hearty-
appreciation to Doctor .i'arren for advice on
the method employed in this study, to Professor
E. 0. livermore for suggesting the problem and
to the many potato growers in Steuhen County
who. by their kind cooperation in furnishing
the necessary information, made the study pos-
sible.
G0IITEIIT3.
Page
Introduction ________i
Topography and 31 ope Related to Planting - - - 4
Checkrowing versus Drill Planting - - - - 6
Study of Types of Planters and Cost of Operation - 8
T7/0 Methods of Measuring Machinery Efficiency - - 12
Cost of Planting -_-__-_ 14
I'ethod of Computation _---__ 14
Relation of Acreage to labor Cost and Machine Cost
of Planting --------17
Cost of Hand Planting on E62 Farms - - - - 19
Relation of Acreage to Cost of Hand Planting - - 20
Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand Planting - 21
Sprayers and Spraying on 106 Farms - - - - 22
Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms ----- 23
Overhead Cost Items on 35 Sprayers - - - - 24
Cost of Spraying on 106 Farms ----- 25
Machine Spraying -------27
Hand Spraying -------- 28
Summary of Cost of Spraying ----- 28
Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms - - 29
Digging on 308 Farms -------30
Hand versus Miichine Digging on 308 Farms - - - 30
Types of Diggers on 266 Farms ----- 31
Overhead Cost Items for Digger Types on 215 Farms - 33
Cost of Harvesting on 308 Farms - - - - 34
Method of Digging Related to Cost - - _ _ 37
Page
Size of Acreage Related to Cost of Harvesting - - 37
Potato Machinery Rented ------ 38
Special Potato Machinery ------ 39
Planters, 2 -man, Platlorin Types - - - - 40
Planters, 1-man, licker Types ----- 4E
Planters, 1-man, Gup Delivery Types - - - - 43
Planters, 1-raan, Hopper Peed Types - - - - 43
Planters, Hand Jab, Tubular Types - - _ _ 44
Planters, Hand Jab, Single Piece Types - - - 44
Sprayers, Chain Drive. Horizontal Barrel Types - 45
Sprayers, Ghain Drive, Yertical Barrel Types - - 47
Sprayers, Hand Puiap. Barrel Types - - - - 48
Sprayers, Compressed ii^ir Znapsack Types - - - 49
Sprayers, Canteen Hand Types ----- 50
Diggers, Ghain Elevator Types ----- 51
Diggers, Disc Roller Elevator Types - - - - 53
Diggers, Spider, Rotary Fork Types - - - - 53
Diggers, Shovel Plow Shaker Types - - - _ 54
Diggers, Rotary Reel Types ----- 55
Seed Gutters --------56
Hoes or Hillers --------57
Dusters --_-_____ 57
Combined Diggers and Pickers ----- 58
Sorters or Graders -------59
TABLES.
Table Page
I. Per Cent Slope Related to Llethod of Planting 4
II. Gheckrowing Versus Drills as I^ethod of
Planting ____---7
III. Machine Versus Hand Planting - _ - 8
IV. Makes of Potato Planters on 67 Farms - - 9
V. Platform Versus Picker Planters - - - 11
VI. Sost of Machine Planting on 67 Farms - - 14
VII. Relation of Acreage to labor Cost and Machine
Cost of Planting ----- 17
VIII. Relation of Cost of Machine Planting and
acreage _______ is
IX. Cost of Hand Planting on 262 Farms - - 19
X. Variation in i.:an and Eorse labor Cost - - 19
XI. Relation of Size of xiCreage to Cost of Hand
Planting ----___ £0
XII. Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand
Planting -------El
XIII. Machine Versus Hand Spraying on 106 Farms - 25
XIV. Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms - - - 25
XV. Overhead Cost Items on 35 Sprayers - - 24
ZVI. Relation of acreage to Machine Spraying with
Insecticide only ----- 26
XVII. Relation of Acreage to I.Iachine Spraying with
Fungicide only ------ 26
XVIII. Relation of Acreage to Hand Spraying with
Insecticide only - - - - - 26
:ax. Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms - 29
XX. Hand Versus Machine Digging on 308 Farms - 30
-4-
Table Page
IXI. Types of Diggers on 266 Farms ^ - - 3E
XXII. Types of diggers on 226 ?arms .Ifleoted by
Slope --------33
IZUII. Digger Costs on 215 Farms - - - - 54
XXIV. Relation of Llethod of Digging to Cost - - 36
XXV. Relation of Acreage to Cost of Harvesting by
Hand --------36
XXVI. Relation of Acreage to Cost of Harvesting
with Elevator Digger ----- 36
XXVII. Relation of .-icreage to Oost of Harvesting
with Reel Digger ----- 36
-5-
ILLUSTP.ATIOirS.
Figure Page
I. Typical I'opograrhy of northern Steuben
County _-__---3
II. i'ield of Potatoes Planted in Check Rows - 6
III. Platform Planter in Operation - - - 10
IV. Common 4 -row I^arker Used in Hand Planting - 16
V. Horizontal Barrel Sprayer in Operation in
Suffolk County ------ 24
VI. Boss Digger (Reel Type) in Operation in
Suffolk County ------ 31
VII. Two-man Platform '^iroe of Planter - - 59
VIII. One-man Picker Type of Planter - - - 60
IZ. One-man Cup Delivery Type of Planter - - 61
X. One-man Hopper Peed Type of Planter - - 6E
HI. Tubular Hand Type of Planter - - - 6S
XII. Single Piece Hand Type of Planter - - 63
ZIII. Chain Drive Horizontal Barrel Sprayer - 64
II V. Chain Drive Vertical Barrel Sprayer - - 65
IV. Hand Pump Barrel Sprayer - - - - 66
ZVI. Znapsack Compressed Air Sprayer - - - 67
ZVII. Plunger Pump Canteen Sprayer - - - 67
XVIII. Chain Llevator Digger - - _ - 68
XIX, Disc Roller zJlevator Digger - - - 68
rx. Rotary Fork Digger ----- 69
XXI. Rotary Reel Digger ----- 69
XXII. Shovel -Plow Shaker Digger - - - - 70
-6-
Figure
XXIII.
XXIV,
X.1V.
XXVI.
XXVII .
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
Triple -cut Hand Seed Cutter -
Hinge Plank Seed Cutter
Foot Pedal Seed Cutter
Low Ridge Type of Killer
High Ridge Type of Hiller -
Bivalve Bellows Duster
Shaker Bucket Duster
Combined Digger and Picker -
Screen Shaker Type of Sorter
Page
71
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
75
"Potato Maoliinery Efficiency As Applied
To Production in Steuben County"
It is often an open question with the average farmer en-
gaged in diversified farming on a limited acreage whether the
purchase of special machinery or even what might be called dual
purpose machinery may be considered good economy in his busi-
ness. Indeed it is a fact long conceded that the average
farmer can not own such machinery as a traction engine, gaso-
line tractor, grain separator or perhaps even a hay press.
Rather are these machines to be treated as rolling stock or
neighborhood assets than actual farm machinery for the exclu-
sive use of one farm. This is largely true because of the fact
that farm economics as now taught tends to show the disadvantages
of having an unusually large supply of either labor or machin-
ery on hand which is not steadily employed. Tlie former is
certain to be a source of wasted expense and the latter a con-
stant source of depreciation. As some Interest rate must
always be levied on the capital invested in any business, the
interest charge on the undue proportion of unproductive capital
as in the above instance must be considered a decided liability
to good farm efficiency.
As this paper treats of the economic utility of that class
of machinery herein and elsewhere designated as special machin-
ery, it is probably well to define in a general way what is
meant by the three classes of machinery that are or may be em-
ployed on a farm, namely, general, dual purpose and special.
General farm machinery refers to that class of machines and
tools which in this age is considered necessary and is found in
more or less regular use on all farms, and for most crops
throughout the country. This includes such -machines and tools
as the wagon, roller, sulky plow, springtooth or spiketooth
harrow, scythe and &i!a^e. By dual purpose machinery is meant
that class which serves for use in the cultivation of perhaps
two or three crops only, including such machines as the grain
drill, mowing machine, hay rake, combined harvester, tedder,
etc. Special machinery as a class includes only such machines
as are intended to suit the needs of a single crop. Such
machinery is as a rule of a more expensive construction and of
less actual profit to the farmers per dollar invested. In
this class will he considered such machines as the corn har-
vester, ensilage cxttter, potato planter, potato sprayer, pota-
to digger, cabbage and cauliflower setter.
In a survey of the potato growing industry of Steuben
County, New York, in which 360 farms producing five acres or
over of potatoes were visited, it was found that potatoes are
there grown not perhaps as the principal crop but as one of the
main crops in a quite common rotation of potatoes, or potatoes
and corn, oats and hay two years with perhaps a third year
stand of hay plowed under before replanting to potatoes. It
is natural therefore to find that the area planted to the latter
crop varies throughout the county from five to forty acres with
the average acreage about 14.7. The minimum acreages of pota-
toes therefore with whioh the Steuben Ooxmty farmer can afford
to buy and operate either two horse planter, sprayer or digger
is not an uncommon question, and one which this problem pro-
poses to analyze.
It must not be concluded however even after the problem
has been studied and analyzed on an economic basis and the mini-
mum acreage detennined, if possible, that absolute conclusions
can be drawn. The element of practicability must also be con-
sidered because a very large proportion, 90 per cent of the
potato crop of the county is being grown on hillside farms vary-
ing in their slope from 1 per cent to 35 per cent with the
average about 7.9 per cent. It may be considered quite im-
practical to operate a potato planter on a slope greater than
15 per cent owing to the difficulty of making straight rows.
Fig. I showing a landscape of a portion of the potato section
of the northern part of the county is typical of the rolling
topography of this region.
-4-
A considerable o± the hilly acreage in the region is
annually sown to oats which must of necessity be cradled owing
to the impossibility of operating a harvester safely. A study
of the United States Census reports for 1899 and 1909 show
Steuben County ranking high in sheep raising, the rank in 1899
being first and that in 1909 being second among the counties of
Hew York State, It is highly probable that much of the pas-
turage of the hill land so used should never have been broken
up for the growing of grain which is unprofitable now both be-
caiise of the impossibility of employing machinery and because
of the Impracticability of hauling the needed fertilizer and
manure so far and so high,
A study of farms Included in the survey revealed the fol-
lowing Interesting facts regarding the proportion of the total
acreage grown on hill farms which was planted with a machine
planter.
Table I. Per Cent Slope Related to Method of
Planting. 345 Farms.
Method of
plant ing
Machine
Hand
Average Total
per cent acreage
slope on slope
1,1%
7.7
1139.5
3413.1
Per cent Per cent
of total Total of total
acreage acreage acreage
on slope on level on level
Z&fo 83.5 11%
75 421.0 83
4552.6
90
504,5
10
-5-
A study of Table I shows that of the total of 4552.6 acres
planted on a slope, representing 90 per cent of the acreage
surveyed, only 25 per cent was planted with a machine planter.
On the other hand, of the total of 504.5 acres planted on the
level, representing 10 per cent of the acreage surveyed, only
17 per cent was planted with a planter. This may be taken as
a reasonable indication that topography is at least not the
only factor which prohibits the more extensive use of machine
planters. It is more to be assumed that the necessity of
oheckrowing for the sake of cheaper and better weed control is
the important limiting factor.
It is generally recognized in farming regions where land
is relatively cheap and labor relatively expensive that more
tillage machinery and horse labor are employed than in regions
where the reverse is true. The fonner conditions prevail In
the potato growing sections of Steuben County in quite striking
contrast to those of the potato regions of Eastern long Island
where land is higher and labor, though not cheaper, is usually
more available. The common crop rotation being longer and in-
clusive of more non-tilled crops than that of Long Island,
makes the control of weeds more of a problem to the average far-
mer. It is only reasonable from the above conditions therefore
that weed control is facilitated by planting in checks, giving
the system commonly known as checkrowing which allows of cross
cultivation. Thus it was found that practically no hand hoeing
is given the potato crop in Steuben County. Figure II shows
a typical checkrowed field of potatoes on a hillside of about
-6-
10 per cent slope.
Fig. II.
The economy of checkrowing therefore makes it quite neces-
sary to plant by hand since modern mechanical planters are not
capable of dropping seed in checks. The records show that 68
per cent of the farms surveyed practiced planting by the check-
row system.
A review of experimental data relative to the comparative
amounts of seed required for and the yields per acre from
planting in checkrows and in drills shows that a greater amount
of seed is required and a greater yield results from planting
in drills. This is reasonable to expect since in this case
the hills are placed much closer in the row than would be pos-
sible under the checkrow system. The results obtained on 349
farms in Steuben County readily verify the foregoing conclusions
as shown in Table II.
-7-
Table II. Checkrowing Versus Drills as Method
of Planting. 349 Farms.
Niimber
Method of of
Percentage
Percentage
of total
Average
amount
of seed
Average
yield
per
planting farms
of farms
acreage
per acre
acre
Checkrowing 238
68.2^
655^
9.2
129.6
Drills 111
31.8
35
11.9
150.9
Total or
average for
region 349
100.
100
10.1
136.4
It should be noted from the above data that the increase
in yield from planting in drills was considerably more than suf-
ficient to pay for the extra seed required. The practice of
checkrowing therefore is not Justified on the basis of resulting
yield.
This, therefore, will account in part for the large amount
of hand planting now practiced in the county outside of its
economic aspects. Less difficulty or impracticability is ex-
perienced in using machine sprayers and diggers on these same
farms owing to their light draft as compared to the machine
planter. The types of each of these machines will be considered
under the efficiency studies further on in the thesis.
-8-
A Study of Types of Planters and Post of Operation .
Before taking up the details of cost , a preliminary study
has heen made of the extent of machine, planting and prevailing
types of planters on 329 farms.
Table III. Machine Versus Hand Planting.
329 Farms.
Average Average
Average cost cost
cost per per Average
per man horse per
acre hour hour Average cent
Per cent inolu- inclu- inclu- acreage slope
Method number of sive of sive of sive of planted of
of of total fertil- fertil- fertil- per field
planting farms acreage izing izing izing farm planted
Machine 67 25.0^ .-^LQ? $.49 ;p.39 17.9 7.1^
Hand 262 74.9 2.68 .34 .37 13.7 7.7
Total or
average -,
for all 329 100. --- --- --- 14.7 7.9"^
Table III shows that only 67 farms out of the 3E9.or about
20 per cent were planted with machine planters. These farms
so planted represent about 25 per cent of the total acreage , or
an average of 17.9 acres per farm as against an average of 13.7
acres for the farms planted by hand.
There were five makes of planters employed on the 67 farms
besides one home-made planter of the one-man or picker type.
Table IV shows the different makes and the number and percentage
Average for 345 farms.
-9-
of farms using each.
Table IV. Makes of Potato Planters on 67 Farms,
Make of planter
number of
farms using
Pe
fa
r cent of
rms using
Type of
planter
Robbins
22
47. 75^
Platform
Aspinwall
19
28.5
Picker
Iron Age
8
11.9
Platform
Eureka
4
6.0
Picker
Evans
3
4.5
Picker
Home -made
1
1.5
Picker
Total
67
100.
Type of Planter
(2 man) Platform
(1 man) Picker
number of
farms using
40
27
Per cent of
farms using
6O5S
40
Total
67
100
It is interesting to note from the summary part of Table IV
that, in spite of the greater initial cost of the platform
planters as evidenced in the following table, more than half of
the machine planters employed in the cotmty are of this type.
Another factor which one might suppose would perhaps encourage
the use of picker instead of the platform types is that of the
extra man required for the operation of the latter. Figure III
shows a platform potato planter in operation in Steuben County,
For an illustration of the picker type of planter see cut in
-10-
the appen^d list of Glaasified machinery.
rig.Tn. -
It is doubtless the increased yield thought to accrue from
the better stand resulting where a two-man planter is used
that is responsible for the predominance of this type. The
actual difference in yield between crops planted by each type
of planter is shown in Table V. In order to be able to under-
stand the comparative value of the various types of planters
enumerated and summarized in Table lY, it is necessary to know
the average initial cost, average annual depreciation as
measured by the life of each in years and the difference in
yield, if any, resulting from the use of each type. Table Y
gives a summary of these factors.
-11-
Table Y. Platform Versus Picker Planters.
Average
Average Average life Average yield
Jype initial cost in years depreciation per acre
Platform #67.53 15,3 #4.68 161.5
Picker 60.11 13.5 4.70 146.9
Average for 67
farms 64.41 14.5 4.69 156.1
In spite of the difference of about $7.00 in initial cost
of the platform over the picker type, the average life of the
former being about two years longer than that of the latter
gives an average annual depreciation of |4.69, differing for
both types by only two cents. It is obvious therefore that
the difference of 14.6 bushels yield per acre resulting in favor
of the platform planter is approximately clear gain. The dif-
ference of 14.6 bushels average yield per acre is enough, figur-
ing potatoes at an average price of 50 cents per bushel to pay
for the difference in initial cost of the more expensive type
in a single year.
In order to still further test the difference in yield, if
any, resulting from these two types of planters, the twenty-
five highest yielding farms and the twenty-five lowest yielding
farms on which machine planters were used were selected and the
proportion of each type of planter used determined for each
group. The twenty-five highest yielding machine planted acre-
ages having an average yield of E13.9 bushels per acre showed
-12-
that 76 per cent were planted with the platform type. The
twenty-five lowest yielding maohine planted acreages having an
average yield of 107.2 bushels per acre or one -half that of the
highest yielding acreages showed that only 44 per cent were
planted with the platform type.
Therefore in accordance with popular conception, it is
safe to say that this increase in yield is in large part due
to the better stand resulting from the employment of the extra
man on the two -man planter.
Two Methods of Measuring Machinery Efficiency .
./ith the foregoing understanding of those natural condi-
tions to which cultural operations are subject, and which, though
exerting their influence, can not be measured in any economic
terms, it is possible to calculate the efficiency of special
potato machinery as measured in terms of money and labor expend-
ed. In doing this, the method of calculating the unit cost of
machinery has been that which is used and recommended by the
Department of Farm Management of Cornell University.
In the writer's opinion there are two methods which might
be employed in arriving at proper conclusions along these lines:
First : When the overhead cost per acre of potato machin-
ery is exceeded by the saving in labor cost per acre of machine
labor over hand labor , It may then be considered economy to own
and operate a given machine. This necessitates finding the
difference in labor cost per acre of hand and machine labor.
Second : Determine the per acre cost of hand and machine
-12-
labor. Select and group these records In each case according
to a uniform variation in acreage planted. In this way the
minimum acreage at which one can aiford to own and operate the
machine may be determined.
Each of these methods has been used in this study in
arriving at conclusions. Each possesses certain value and
the essential difference lies in the handling of the data.
The factor used in measuring efficiency in this case con-
sists of a ratio of actual work performed by the power machines
against that performed by hand and the ratio of cost of power
machine labor per acre against cost of hand labor. In each
case, in computing the cost of power machinery, interest is
figured on its average value and to this is added the annual de-
preciation and cost of repairs. Average value is figured by
taking the average of values at beginning and end of year 1912.
The variation in original cost of various makes of each of these
three machines was not considered sufficient to warrant comput-
ing an average value of each one separately- The cost of
planters, sprayers and diggers, therefore, is 'figured taking the
average of the various brands of each of these.
-14-
Oo3t of Planting.
The data taken on cost of machine planting have been used
as outlined on page 13 and summarized in Tahle VI below.
Table VI, Cost of Machine Planting on 67 Farms.
Average Average
number number Average Average
Per cent Average labor Machine man horse cost cost
of farms cost cost cost hours hours per per
of per per per per per ipan horse
region acre acre acre acre acre hour hour
EO.4^ $1.97 |1.57 $.40 4.04 5.02 $.49 $.39
The average cost per acre of machine planting, $1.97,
shown above is considerably lower than the cost of planting by
hand as figured further along in this thesis and somewhat under
the average cost of planting for the United States. The Crop
Reporter of the United States Department of Agriculture for
Uoveraber, 1911, gives $2.39 as the average figure estimated by
over 4000 crop correspondents for the Bureau of Statistics.
This last figure, however, is naturally higher owing to the
fact that it includes all estimates for both hand and machine
planting. The actual overhead cost per acre of the planter
on these 67 farms forms a relatively small part of the total
cost, it being in this case $.40 or about 20 per cent of the
total.
Method of Computation .
In figuring the total cost of machine planting as given
above, the labor cost of both man and horse and the overhead
-15-
cost of the planter were fifured separately, the comhined totals
forming the total cost. Man labor was charged at 20 cents
per hour and horse labor at 15 cents, the actual number of
hours of each charged being the figure given by the farmer from
whom the record was taken.
The items used in computing the overhead machine cost
consist of a charge of 5 per cent interest on the average pre-
sent value of the machine plus a charge for the annual depre-
ciation plus a charge for the cost of repairs for the year 1912,
The average present value on which interest was charged was
found by taking the value of the machine at the end of the
growing season of 1912 and adding to it one -half of the depre-
ciation for that year. This figure, then, really represents
the average of the values of the machine at the beginning and
at the end of 1912. The annual depreciation was found by
dividing the initial cost of each machine by its years of life.
Only actual repair costs incurred, if any, for the 191E crop
were added for the third cost item.
Inasmuch as practically all planters are or may be equip-
ped with a fertilizer attachment and hence no added cost from
the use of fertilizer, no attention was given to the applica-
tion of fertilizer in getting at the cost of machine planting.
However, in getting the cost of hand planting, wherever fertil-
izer was used, its cost of ay^plication was considered an item
in the cost of planting. This seemed justified inasmuch as
this same cost would not have been incurred In case a planter
had been used and it should therefore be charged apainst hand
-16-
plantlng.
Likewise the labor cost of marking out potato land was in-
cluded in the cost of hand planting because all machine planters
are equipped with a marker which makes any extra effort or time
for marking outside of actual planting unnecessary. Marking
is generally done ,1ust ahead of planting where potatoes are
hand planted, is considered a part of the planting operation
and consequently the time used in marking was quite universally
included by the grower in his estimate of planting time. Where
he did not so include it, the item has been added to the labor
cost of planting, i'igure IV shows a 4-row type of marker in
common use where the crop is hand planted.
Fig. lY.
Owing to the fact that most growers pick up the crop per-
iodically with digging during the day in order that the tubers
may not be exposed to the sun too long and in order that they
-17-
may be hauled to storage or market as soon as dug, the labor
Items given for digging by the growers included, and necessarily
so. in most instances the labor of picking up. ,7here this
was not true, the labor of picking up has been added to the
separate labor of digging either by hand or machine. The cost
of digging will therefore be found to be rather high in compar-
ison to average figures.
Aside from the foregoing explanations, the same method
of computing machine and labor costs has been used for planting,
spraying and digging.
With most farm enterprises there is generally a striking
correlation between the cost of that enterprise and extent of
acreage. In other words, the cost per acre ordinarily decreases
as the acreage increases. A study was made of the influences
of size of potato acreage on cost per acre of planting and the
result tabulated in Table YII.
Table VII. Relation of Acreage to labor and
Machine Cost of Planting.
Cost per
acre
number of
of machi
ne
Overhead machine
farms
Acreage
5-10
labor
cost per acre
14
$1.85
$.76
17
11 - 15
1.75
.5£
£1
16 - £0
1.59
.41
15
£1 - 55
1.41
.£6
67 17.9 1.57 .40
-18-
From Table VII it may be seen that whereas a variation of
from five to fifty-five acres makes a difference in machine
labor cost of only $.44 per acre, or a reduction to 76 per cent
of the original cost, a similar variation of acreage reduces
the overhead machine cost to 34 per cent of the original. And
for both of these cost factors there is a uniform decrease in
ujiit cost for every increase in acreage.
Contrary to the usual method of sorting records by cause
rather than effect, a study has been made of cost and acreage
correlation by sorting by cost rather than acreage. Table VIII
shows that those farms incurring the highest machine planting
cost per acre were those planting the least acreage.
Table VIII. Relation of Cost of Machine Planting
and Acreage.
Kumber of
farms
Cost -per acre
Average acreage
8
^1.
- 1.50
31.2
£1
1.51
- 2.00
19.5
27
2.01
- 2.50
16.0
7
2.51
- 3.00
12.7
3
3.01
- 3.50
10.0
1
3.51
- 4.00
5.0
67 #1.97 17.9
The cost of hand planting on 262 Steuben County farms,
representing about 75 per cent of the region, has been computed
and summarized in Table IX as follows :
-19-
Table IX. Coat of Hand Planting on 262 Farms.
Per cent
of farms
of
region
79.6^
Average
coat per
acre
$2 • 68
Average
number
man
hours
per acre
8.0
Average
number
horse
hours
per acre
7.3
Average
cost per
man
hour
t.34
Average
cost per
horse
hour
$.37
It will be noted from the above table that the average
number of man hours per acre for hand planting is about double
that lor machine planting while the average number of horse
hours is about forty-five per cent more than for machine plant-
ing. This accounts largely for the higher rate of labor cost
that is shown in Table Z. However, the great reduction in
hours per acre for the machine makes the actual labor cost per
acre for the latter much less.
Table X. Variation in Man and Horse Labor Cost,
Method of
plant ing
Machine
Hand
Average
number
man hours
4.04
8.00
Average
number
horse hours
5.02
7.30
Average
cost per
man hour
3;. 49
.34
Average
cost per
horse hour
$.39
.37
Difference
3.96
2.28
.15
.02
As with machine planting the relation between size of
acreage and cost per acre of hand planting has been established
and summarized in Table ZI,
-20-
Table XI. Relation of Size of Acreage to
Cost of Hand Planting.
ITumber o
farma
if
Acreage
5-11
Cost per
|2.92
acre
Difference in
cost per acre
93
93
11 - 16
2.72
$.20
47
16 - 21
2.61
.11
29
21 - 55
2.51
.10
£62 13.7 2.68 .41
A study of the total differences in cost per acre of
machine labor and of hand labor for the total variation in
acreage in each ease of 5 to 55 acres reveals a striking uni-
formity. The total difference in cost per acre for hand plant-
ing was |.41 while that for machine planting was $.44. The
variation between acreage groups in each case was also striking-
ly uniform.
It was said in the beginning of this study, that wherever
the overhead cost of a machine does not exceed the saving in
cost of labor from the use of that machine, it may be considered
profitable to employ machine instead of hand labor. In Table XII
it will be seen in every case regardless of the size of acreage
planted that the net difference in cost is in favor of machine
labor and that the larger the acreage planted, the greater is
this difference in cost saved.
-21-
Table XII. Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand
Planting.
Number
of
farms
E^- 93)
Per acre Per acre Overhead
cost of cost of Difference machine Difference
i^verage hand machine in labor cost per in favor
acreage labor labor cost acre of machine
M - 14)
) 5-11 $2.92
H - 93)
M - 17)
) 11 - 16 S.7£
H - 47)
M - 21)
) 16 - 21 2.61
H - 29)
- 15)
) 21 - 55 2.51
..85
1.75
1.59
1.41
$1.07
.97
1.02
1.10
1.76
.52
.41
.26
!.31
.45
.61
.84
H -262) H - 13.7
) 2.68
M - 67) M - 17.9
1.57
1.11
.40
.71
In the case of planting, therefore, it may be generally
recommended that for all acreages of five or over it is econ-
omical to own and operate a machine planter and that best
economy is realized from the larger plantings.
H = Number of farms planted by hand.
M = Number of farms planted by machine.
Sprayers and Spraying on 106 Farms ♦
Before aiscussing the actual cost of sprayirg It Is well
to note here a few factors such as the type and cost of sprayers
used, the extent and kind oi spraying done and such other fac-
tors as ultimately affect or indirectly irxfluence the cost.
Since all machine sprayers operate above ground and their draft
while in operation is consequently relatively light, no study
was made to determine the influence of slope of land upon the
type of sprayer used or the extent of machine spraying done.
There was a very large amount of late blight and rot pre-
valent on the 1912 crop, in some cases nearly a quarter of the
crop being totally destroyed before digging time. It is not
surprising to note therefore that only 15 farmers, representing
4.1 per cent of the total farms surveyed, sprayed their pota-
toes with Bordeaux,
Out of 360 farms, only 106 or less than one-third sprayed
the crop v/ith either insecticide or fungicide and of these 106,
only 35 employed machine sprayers. Though it might normally
be expected that those using such sprayers practice spraying
with Bordeaux, actually only 15 farmers or less than one -half
of those using power sprayers sprayed for blight v/ith Bordeaux
Mixture. Uone of those spraying v/ith hand implements applied
any Bordeaux. Table ZIII is a suranary of the relative number
spraying by hand and machinery with the material used in each
case in Steuben County.
-23-
Table 'QII. Iiachine Versus Hand 3r raying on 106 Farms.
Method and Tiaterial
Machine (Insecticide only)
Iiachine (Bordeaiix and
Insecticide )
Hand (Insecticide only)
number of i'arms Per cent of farms
15
71
18.95
14.1
67.0
Totals
106
100.
A study of the various makes of sprayers used and the
number and percentage of each as classified in the list append-
ed to this thesis is summarized in Table XIV as follows :
Table 217. Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms. ,
i! umber
of
Per
cent of
Vertical
Horizontal
Sprayer
farms using
total used
barrel type
barrel type
./at son
21
60. o>:-
60
Iron Age
4
11.4
11.4
Aspinvmll
4
11.4
11.4
Ospraymo
2
5.7
5.7
le Hoy
2
5.7
5.7
Aroostook
1
2.9
'2.9
Hurst
1
2.9
2.9
Total
35
100.
68.6
31.4
The predominance of the vertical barrel type in this case
is not an indication of any advantage of this type over the
hori2ontal barrel type because the Jatson, Ospraymo and Aroostook
-24-
tirands are all made by the Held Force Pump Com]:any of Llmira,
New York, a city within easy reach of the Steuben County potato
fields.
The items '.vhich contribute toward the overhead cost of the
35 machine sprayers have been averaged and summarized in Table
XV as follows :
Table XV. Overhead Cost Items on 35 Srrayers.
-average iiVer^ge
initial cost depreciation
Average
..verage Average machine cost
life cost repairs per acre
160.34
.;^6.02
10
$.69
0.2O
It may be noted from Table X7 that the average machine cost of
sprayers is 20 cents per acre whereas the same cost for planters
was found to be 40 cents per acre. (See Table YI. ) Figure V
shows a 7-rov/ horizontal barrel sprayer in operation on one of
the largest fields in Suffolk County, The operation of this
tjfie of sprayer is one important means of reducing the cost of
machine spraying.
Fig. Y.
-25-
Gos t oi 3pra,.vlng on 106 Farms.
In arriving at the coat of spraying on 106 farms in
oteuben County, the records were sorted into classes namely,
farms applying insecticide only with machine sprayers, Table
XVI; farms applying both insecticide and Bordeaux or Bordeaux
alone with machine sprayers, Table XVII; and farms applying
insecticide only by hand, Table XVIII.
-26-
Table XVI. Summary of the Relation of ^.cres to Machine Sv raying with Insecticide Only.
Ilxuntier Average value Interest
of Total Man hours Horse hours of spraying on mach inery Depre ciation
Acreage farm s acres Total Per acre Total^er ac re machinery Tota l t'e'r acre iTotal !Per acre
5-16 10 131.5 100 ,8 195 1.5 |45.45 $22.75 $.17 $49.00 $.37
16-26 6 153. 98 .6 197 1.3 33.17 9.97 .07 18.00 .12
26-51 4 177. 44 .2 88 .5 56.25 11.25 .06 20.00 .11
:0 461.5 242 .5 480 1. 43.93 43.97 .10 87.00 .19
Table IVII. Summary of the Relation of Acres to Machine Sp raying with "l^rdeaux and Insec
5-16 3 180. 160 .9 320 1.8 39.67 5.95 .03 18.00 .10
16-26 9 539.5 443 .8 832 1.5 37.83 17.04 .03 71.00 .13
26-51 3 326. 329 1.0 543 1.7 30.83 4.63 .01 35.00 .11
15 1045.5 932 .89 1695 1.62 36.80 27.62 .03 124.00 .12
Table XVIII. Summary of the Relation of ivcres to Hand Spraying with Insecticide Only.
5-16 46 475. 1224 E.6 --- --- 1.87 4.51 .009 52.00 .11
16 - 26 21 349. 848 2.4 --- --- 5.00 5.34 .02 30.00 .09
26-51 4 33. 42 1.3 -— — 2.25 .47 .01 4.00 .IE
71 857 2114 2.47 --- --- 2.82 10.52 .012 86.00 .10
3n of ^cres to Machine Sp raying with Insecticide Only.
Average value Interest Grand
3orsehonrs_ of spraying on machinery Depre ciation Machine cost Labor cost total cost
Eal~^er acre machinery ,_, Total Per acr e W^aT-Per ao^ METT^Usik MHIlOcre Total Per ac re
35 1.5 145.45 $22.75 $.17 $49.00 $.37 $75.75 $.56 $49.25 $.37 $123.00 $.94
37 1.3 33.17 9.97 .07 18.00 .12 27.97 .18 49.15 .32 77.12 .50
^^ -^ ^^-25 ^1-25 .06 20.00 .11 41.25 .23 22.00 .12 63.25 .36
30 1- 43.93 43.97 .10 87.00 .19 142.97 .31 120.40 .28 263.37 .57
ion of Acres to Machine Sp raying with Bordeaux and Insecticide.
20
1.8
39.67
5.95
.03
18.00
.10
23,95
.13
80.00
.44
103.95
.58
32
1.5
37.83
17.04
.03
71.00
.13
97.04
.18
213.40
.40
310.44
.58
iZ
1.7
30.83
4.63
.01
35.00
.11
42.63
.13
147.25
.45
189.88
.58
55
1.62
36.80
27.62
.03
124.00
.12
163.62
.16
440.65
.42
604.27
.58
ion of Acres to Hand Spraying with Insecticide Only.
1-87 4.51 .009 52.00 .11 56.51 .12 244.80 .52 301.31 .63
5.00 5.34 .02 30.00 .09 40.34 .12 169.60 .49 209.94 .60
2.25 .47 .01 4.00 .12 4.47 .14 8.40 .25
12.87 .39
:.82
10.32 .012 86.00 .10 101.32 .12 422.80 .49 524.12
61
-27-
This classification includes all farms practicing spraying in
any form since there were none on which Bordeaux was aprlie^ ^7
hand labor alone. i^ach farm and nethod of spraying has "been
studied separately with reference to the others and with refer-
ence to the influence of size of potato acreage and total acre-
age upon each of the cost items.
Machine Spraying .
The reasonable assumption that owing to the clogging of
nozzles with Bordeaux, spraying in this v/ay should show a higher
man and horse hour rate per acre is v/ell substantiated in this
stiidy. I'/hereas the rate on larms spraying with insecticide
alone was .5 man and 1 horse hour per acre, the rate in case of
farms using Bordeaxix was .89 and 1.67 hours respectively.
By studying Tables XVI, XVII and XVIII it is of interest
to note that the average acreage sprayed with Bordeaux per farm
is over three tines greater than that of the farms sprayed with
insecticide alone by machine sprayers and nearly six times
greater than that of the hand spraj/'ed areas sprayed with insec-
ticide. The acreages as referred to here are 70, £5 and 12
respectively. This is accounted for by the fact that the
Bordeaux sprayed farms sprayed from four to five times while
the machine sprayed farms applying insecticide only sprayed on
the average about twice oind the hand sprayed farms about once.
The above variation in average acreage sprayed will account
in large part for the cheaper machine cost of spraying on the
Bordeaux farms over the insecticide sprayed farms because the
-28-
overhead charges are very little affected by acreage sr-rayed.
On the other hand, the labor cost of Bordeaux spraying is
considerably above that of the machine insecticide spraying
as might be expected and the resulting total cost of spraying
per aero by power sprayers therefore shows only one cent less
in favor of insecticide machine spraying.
Hand Spraying .
The average acreage sprayed by hand is notably low in-
dicating that farms as treated were sprayed but once. In tbis
case the man hour rate is over two and a half times greater
than that for machine Bordeaux spraying, giving an average
labor cost per acre of ^,49 or ^,07 per acre more than for
Bordeaux spraying, A higher than expected machine cost per
acre may be noted here owing to the high depreciation charged
on knapsack and canteen sprayers. In nearly all cases where
canteen sprayers are used, their depreciation is charged as
100 per cent since their life is but one year. This makes an
average machine cost of hand spraying of .;i,12 per acre. The
difference in total cost of hand spraying is ■„, 61 per acre or
only v?,03 more than machine Bordeaux spraying,
Summary of Cost of Spraying .
From the last three tables it may be noted that there is
very little difference in cost per acre of the three methods
and t^^es of spraying, labor cost is undoubtedly greatest
with hand spraying and labor cost of machine spraying is greater
where Bordeaux is used than where insecticide is used alone.
-E9-
But another important economic factor, thst of yield of
the resulting crop must be considered in reckoning the advisa-
bility of using Bordeaux. Table Xlli below is a fair indication
of the value of Bordeaux xvlixture as measured in terms of yield
against yields resulting where no spraying was done.
Table XIX. Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms.
number
Per cent
Type of spray
of farms
of farms
Yi^
eld per acre
Bordeaux
15
4,Zfo
166.3
Insecticide only
160
44.5
137. S
¥one
184
51.3
130.2
For Region
359
100.
136.4
-30-
Digglng on 508 Farms .
It is generally true in regions growing large acreages of
potatoes that most of the crop is dug v/ith some form of mechan-
ical digger. Just how much more profitable this is over hand
digging, this study attempts to determine. Table XX shows
the prevalence of each practice on 308 farms with the average
slope of land, average acreage per farm and average yield per
acre under each.
Table XX. Hand Versus Machine Digging on 308 Farms.
Per cent average
Humber Per cent of per cent .^.creage Yield
Xethod farms of farms acreage slope per faiTn per acre
Hand 82 21% ZZfo 8.2% 12.4 139.2
Machine 226 73 77 7.3 15.2 134.7
Total 308 100 100 7.5 14.5 135.7
less than one-third of the total acreage was dug by hand
in 1912. This is to be expected where five or more acres are
grown per farm and the slope is not too steep to permit of the
use of a machine. It might be reasonable to suppose that the
larger acreages would tend to encourage the use of machine
diggers. Table XX shows that the average acreage per farm
where the crop was hand dug was only 3 acres less than that
where the crop was machine dug. Also the table indicates that
there is a tendency for more hand digging on the steeper areas,
a difference in this case of about one per cent. The slight
difference in yield in favor of the hand dug crop is only
enough to account for the cleaner work done by hand over machine
digging.
Typos of Diggers on 266 Farms .
Owing to the extremely steep hillsides on which a large
part of the Steuben County crop is grown, the heavy draft ele-
vator type of digger is not popular on many farms. In its
stead, a digger of much lighter weight and simpler construction,
knovm as the "Boss", is used on these farms. It consists
essentially of a vertical or slightly tilted reel which operates
from the main axis of the drive wheels by a system of cogs and
at right angles to the drive wheels kicking the tubers out at
the side of the row. Fig. YI shows one of these diggers in
operation on level ground. As might be supposed from this
figure, the main objection to this reel type of digger is its
injury to the tubers while digging.
-52-
For reference to the other type, the chain elevator digger
less popular in the ooimty see the cuts appended at the end of
this thesis. lahle 111 gives the various makes of diggers, the
number in use and the type of each as used on 266 farms.
Table
XII.
Typi
3S Of Diggers
on 266 Farms.
Name of digger
Type
lilnmber
of farms
Per cent
of farms
Boas
Reel
166
62.4^
Cummings
Shaker
E6
9.7
Reuther
r
Elevator
25
9.3
Hallock
Elevator
18
6.7
Rice
Elevator
12
4.5
Salt sman
Reel
6
2.2
Jilliams
Reel
5
1.8
Hoy
Elevator
3
1.1
Iron Age
Elevator
3
1.1
Farquhar
Elevator
2
.7
Total
266
100.0
From the foregoing table it may be seen that potato diggers
are of two general types, namely, reel and elevator. In this
study, owing to their si^ailarity of cost, size and construction,
those diggers which, like the Cummings, consist mainly of a
shaker are classed with the chain or riddle elevator diggers for
comparison with the reel types. Table XXII, really a summary
of digger types as listed in Table XXI, shows the influence of
-33-
slope on the type of digger used.
Table X2II. Types of Digger on E26 Farms Affected by Slope.
Per cent Average
ITumber Per cent of per cent Acreage Yield
Type farms of farms acreage slope per farm per acre
Reel 155 69^ 68?$ 7,8% 15.2 128.6
Elevator 71 31 32 6.2 15.4 147.8
Total 226 100 100 7.3 15.2 134.7
Though the difference in slope shown here is not great,
the greater slope of those farms dug by the reel type indicates
the greater workability of this tjrpe for those farms. Of the
155 who used the reel type, only It expressed a desire to change
to the elevator type. Of the 71 who used the elevator types,
only 13 expressed a desire to change to the reel type. Three
growers out of the 226 expressed themselves as preferring hand
digging to machine.
Overhead Cost Items for Digger Types on 215 Farms .
As in figuring the -overhead cost of planters and sprayers,
the same cost for diggers was obtained by figuring interest at
5 per cent on the average value and including the cost of re-
pairs and depreciation. Table X2III is a summary of these
items.
-o4-
TalDle ZXIII. Digger Costs on 215 Farms.
Average Average
number initial Average Average cost of
Type farms cost^ depreciation life^ repairs
Elevator 71 v73.31 :;^9.92 8.6 02.38
T^eel 144 53.77 5.26 11.5 1.52
The reel type oi digger is much cheaper in most ways than
the elevator which requires a new chain nearly every year and
on the whole does not last as long. The reel type costs a
third less than the elevator type, annually depreciates about
half as much, has an average life three years longer and costs
a dollar less for repairs each year. These things combined
with its lighter draft would tend to increase its popularity
more rapidly v/ere it not for the bruising which results in many
cases to the crop when being dug.
Cost of Harvesting on 508 Farms.
In collecting the data on time required in digging oper-
ations it was difficult for the growers to give the actual
hours spent in digging separate from time spent In picking up
and hauling the crop either to storage or market. This is due
to the fact that all three of these operations are conducted at
the same time, that is, at various times during the same day at
harvest time. Therefore the study here made is on the total
and acre cost of harvesting rather than on digging alone.
In arriving at these items, 19 of the reel diggers and
11 of the elevator diggers used and included in the average were
second-hand machines. Therefore the figures for these items
„^^ ,^ 1 -; o-v -I- T -r T «-„o-- •*-'^an normal.
-o5-
Although cost of digging •.70uld not ordinarily be influ-
enced by yield, the cost of harvesting might be to a slight
extent. nevertheless, in dealing with a large number of
farms as is done here, any influence of variation in yield on
the cost of harvesting by hand or with either type of digger
v/ould be negligible.
Therefore the main point to be borne in mind in interpret-
ing these data is that the labor cost items in all cases include
the cost of picking up and hauling to market.
Grand
Interest Depreciation Machine cost Labor cost total cost
Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre
Digging to Cost.
308 Farms.
$15332.20 §15.04
:ipl65.76 ;,f.l5 $704.00 $.64 $1038.76 v. 95 15086.00 13.81$161S4.76 $14. 76
245.57 .10 816.00 .35 1372.67 .58 31747.00 13.49 35119.77 14.07
of Harvesting,
By Hand.
82 Farms.
Elevator
Diggers
»
71 Farms.
44.05
.25
170.00
.95
248.05 1
.39
52.19
.15
245.00
.71
343.19
.99
38.67
.15
176.00
.69
267.67 1
.05
30.85
.10
113.00
.36
179.85
.58
Reel Diggers^
155 Farms.
68.30
.16
215.00
.52
337.30
.81
73.55
.11
246.00
.38
425.55
.66
59.75
.09
198.00
.29
367.75
.55
43.97
.07
157.00
.25
242.07
.39
4349.15 14.95
6494.20 14.49
3469.65 16.29
1019.20 15.21
2818.25 15.74 3066.30 17.12
4588.05 IS. 24 4931.24 14,22
3271.15 12,83 3538,82 13,88
4408,55 14.13 4588.40 14.71
6031.90 14.53 6369.20 15. 3£
8524.10 13.25 8949.65 13.91
9035.90 13.44 9403.75 13.96
8155.10 13.10 8397.17 13. 4^
-26-
C03T OF HARVSOTIIIG O^T 308 FAPi.iS
HumlDer .iverage
of Total Man hours Horse hours value of
farms acres total Per acre Total Per acre machinery
Method
By hand
Elevator
digger
Reel digger
Table lllY , Relation of Method of
82 1019.1 50777 49.8 34512 33.9
71 1092,5 44807 41. 4077E 37.3 $46.63
155 2353.5 98653 4i.9 80110 34. 51.65
Relation of ^cres per Farm to Cost
Table X2V.
Acres
per farm
4-11
33
291.
14836
51.
9213
31.7
11 - 16
35
448.1
21566
48.1
14540
32.4
16 - 21
12
213.
11322
53.2
8035
37.7
21 - 55
2
67.
3053
45.6
2724
40.7
Table XZYI.
Jith
4-11
20
179.
8045
44.9
8003
44.7
$43.95
11 - 16
26
346.5
14049
40.5
11855
34.2
40.10
16 - 21
14
255.
9653
37.9
8937
35.
55.21
21 - 55
11
312.
13060
41.9
11977
38.4
56.05
Table XXVII.
,7itb
4-11
48
415.
18725
45.1
15246
36.7
#28.43
11 - 16
49
643.5
26254
40.8
21822
33.9
29.98
16 - 21
37
672.5
28239
42.
22588
33.6
32.27
21 - 55
21
622.5
25435
40.9
20454
32.9
41.83
-37-
Dlgglng i.!ethod Related to Cost.
The cost of harvesting v/herx the crop was dug hy hand was
foiind to be •;)15.04 per acre, when dug by the elevator digger
.)14:,76 per acre and when dug by the reel digger ''^14.07 per acre.
The differences here are slight but show in favor of machine
digging. There is a saving of about ;|;;1.00 per acre by the use
of a reel type oi digger as compared to hand digging. There
is an average difference of v. 32 per acre in labor cost in fs^vor
of the reel digger over the elevator type. The greater machine
cost of the latter makes up the difference in total acre cost
of ,J.97 in favor of the reel digger. The saving in labor cost
of harvesting with a reel digger rather than by hand is '1,55
per acre. This is an appreciable total saving for the grower
who is handling a large acreage each year. There is an aver-
age saving of 9 man hours per acre where the crop is harvested
v/ith the use of a digger rather than by hand, I'he horse hour
rate is practically the same.
3i26 of Acreage Related to Cost .
Briefly, size of acreage shows very little influence upon
the horse or man labor cost either when the crop is harvested
by hand or by machine. There is, however, a tendency for the
cost to decrease as the acreage increases. This is more true
when harvesting is done by machine diggers than when it is done
by hand. This may be reasonable to expect, since an acre of
potatoes is more than the average man can dig in a day while
machine diggers usually dig from 4 to 6 acres in a single 10
-38-
hour day.
On the contrary, machine cost per acre is -uniformly decreased
as acreage increases.
The above conclusions are hased upon the summary data given
in Tables XIIV, ZZV, XIVI and 2IVII.
Potato Machinery Rented .
The practice of renting potato machinery is very small,
probably due to the fact that most growers owning their own
machinery desire to use it during the period when it might be
rented.
All of the potato machinery rented among over 330 farms
consisted of 12 reel diggers and 8 planters. Renting of a
machine is usually done for a lump sum rather than on an acre
basis. The average rental of reel diggers was found to be
$.60 per acre while the average acre rental for planters was
Special Potato Maohinery .
In order to make available a source of information which
shall include the names and addresses of manufacturers of
special potato machinery with the special features and price,
if quoted, of each machine, the following classified list has
been compiled and appended.
In order to facilitate the selection of each type of the
various classes of machines, the classes have been grouped
roughly according to their structural mechanism.
No attempt has been made by the writer to emphasize or to
recommend any particular type or manufacture because doubtless
each possesses some feature or features which commend its use
to certain localities or certain economic conditions, or cer-
tain conditions of soil and topography.
The list , though not complete , is thought to include all
of the larger manufacturers of special potato maohinery east
of the Rocky Mountains.
Following the list Is appended a series of cuts which
may serve to illustrate in a general way the structure of the
various types of each class as grouped in the list.
-40-
PLANTER TYPES.
kVO-MAI, PLATFORM TYPE.
Name of Firm
Address
Particular
name of Machine Merit
iVabers Mfg. Go. Racine, ^7is, Milwaulcee
McWhorter Mfg.
Company
Bateman Mfg.
Company
Bateman Mfg.
Company
Riverton,
U. J.
Grenloch,
II. J.
Grenloch ,
N, J.
Few Mcyyhorter
Price
Iron Age #1
Iron Age #2
Semi-auto-
matic cup
delivery
Regulation
of depth
easy and sure.
Fertilizer
attach.
Fertilizer $78
attach,
ahead of
dropper which
mixes it with
soil.
Same as #1, $68
without ferti-
lizer dis-
tributer.
Wm. Fetzer &
Company
Stevens Mfg,
Company
Springfield, Fetzer
111.
Decatur,
111.
Stevens
Small roller
as a front
wheel to the
frame sup -
port. Seed
feeds from
cups to plan-
ter hose.
Cog driven
elevator
planter, mar-
ker attach-
ment.
Hirsch Brothers
Milwaukee
'.7is.
Spalding
Feed over
chute to
planter
spout.
#40
-41-
PLidrTEE TYPES.
T'.TO-i:;^::, PlATFOPii TYPES.
Name of Firm
Particular
Address Ilame of Machine Llerit Price
A. J. Piatt
Sterling,
111.
Keystone
Accuracy,
very simple
construction.
Champion Potato Hammond,
Machinery Go. Ind.
0.. Z. Champion 100 per cent
Dial #£5 accuracy.
-42-
PlAlirER TYPES.
OUE-MAII, PICKER TYPE, AUTOMATIC.
Hame of Firm
Address
Name of Machine
Particular
Merit Price
Aspinwall Mfg.
Company
Jackson ,
Mich.
Aspinwall
¥.0, 3
Fertilizer
attach.
Aspinwall Mfg.
Company
Jackson,
Mich.
Double Row
Fertilizer —
attach.
American Potato
Machinery Co.
Hammond ,
Ind.
Automatic
Fertilizer
attach. Seed
elevated in
cups in full
view of oper-
ator.
Pugh Mfg. Co.
Topeka ,
Kans.
Pugh Planter
Double disk
furrow opener
or shoe furrow
opener.
HayTwood Fire &
Equipment Co.
Indiana-
polis, Ind.
Invincible
ETone in par- —
ticular.
Springer Bros.
Mfg. Company
Edwards -
ville.Ill.
Springer , one
& two planters
Construction —
like corn plan-
ters.
Eureka Mower
Company
Utica, F.Y.
Eureka
Automatic —
dropper and
accurate.
American Seeding
Mach. Company
Springfield
Ohio.
, Evans
Automatic, —
great accuracy.
Bernhardt Mfg.
Co.
Edward s-
ville.Ill.
King
Simplest auto- —
matic planter.
-43-
PIANTER TYPES.
OITE-MAir, CUP DELIVERY TYPE, SEMIAUTOMATIC.
Ijlame of Firm
Champion Potato
Machinery Co.
Schofield &
Company
Addresa
Hammond ,
Ind.
Freeport,
111.
Particular
name of Machine Merit
Price
0. K. Champion
Automatic #EE
Schofield^ Jr.
Combined plan-
ter and digger
Simple, does
not bruise or
stick the seed,
A cheap com-
bination .where
one can not
afford 2
machines.
QUE -MAS, HOPPER FEED TYPE.
ITame of Fir m
American Potato
Machinery Co.
Particular
Address Mame of Machine Merit Price
Hammond, National Auto- Hopper holds
Ind. matic seed cut- 1 bu. and cuts
ting potato and plants all
planter from same hop-
per.
-44-
PIAITTER TYPES.
HAID JAB, TUBULAR TYPE.
TIame of Firm
Address
Name of Machine
Particular
Merit
Price.
',7abers Mfg.
Company
Racine,
Wis.
"Invincible"
Double Leaf
spring all
steel, adjust
able handle.
|1.E5
FOB
Wabers Mfg.
Company
Racine,
?ls.
Wabers Potato
Planter
Solid tube
planter in-
stead of
slatted as
with the In-
vincible.
^i-1.25
FOB
Prairie Mfg.
Company
Indiana -
polls, Ind.
Invincible
lone in par-
ticular.
#1.50
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Traverse
City .Mich.
Eureka Tubular
Potatoes fill
EO" tube.
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Traverse
City, Mich.
Peerless
Tubular
Potato Imple-
ment Co,
Traverse
City, Mich.
Acme Wire
Tubular
Tube of wire
screen.
Potato Imple-
ment Go.
Traverse
City.Mich.
Acme Tubular
Tube solid
like Eureka.
Sheffield Mfg.
Company
Burr Oak,
Mich.
Sheffield
Strong and
light.
HAUD JAB. SINGLE PIECE TYPE.
Name of Firm
Particular
Address Name of Machine Merit Price
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Traverse Acme
City.Mich.
Traverse Pingree
City, Mich.
Wooden broom
handle. Piece
dropped in
for each hill.
Wooden broom
handle. Piece
-45-
3PRAYER TYPES.
CHAIK DRIVE, HORISONIAL BARREL TYPE.
lame of Firm
Address
BTame of Machine
Particular
Merit
Price
Thos. Peppier
Eights town,
H. J.
Perfection
6 -row
Flexible pipe
extension op-
erated from
driver ^s seat
to pass ob-
stacles.
|75
com-
plete,
!
Brandt Mfg.
Company
Minneapo-
lis, Minn.
Simplex
Sprayer
Cam driven,
strong, all
parts under
control of
drivers, 4
or 6 row.
.^70
Aspinwall
Mfg. Co.
Jackson,
Mich.
Aspinwall
Piimp at right
angle, distri-
Bateman
Mfg. Co.
Bateman
Mfg. Co,
Grenloch,
I. J.
Grenloch
N, J.
ITo. 105DS
Iron Age,
No. 105 D
Iron Age
butes power re-
quired in suc-
tion, pressure
is equivalent
to purely rotary
motion. Barrel
above axle -less
weight on horse.
Six row, 100 $105
gal. traction
sprayer. Gal-
vanized barrel
container, a-
head of driver,
nozzles behind.
Same as #105 DS .^97
except for 4
rows.
Champion Potato Hammond.
Machinery Co. Ind.
McKenzie Bros. LaCrosse.
Mfg. Co. Wis.
O.K. Champion
Egan 5 row
4 row, simple
and pump effic-
iency.
Barrel mounted
on steel frame
chain drive
traction.
-46-
SPRAYER TYPES.
CHAIH DRIVE, HORIZONTAL BARREL TYPE.
Name of Firm
Pugh Mfg.
Company
McKenzie Bros.
Mfg. Company
McZenzie Mfg.
Company
Address
Topeka,
Kans.
LaCrosse ,
Wis.
LaCrosse.
Wis.
Particular
lame of Machine Merit
Pugh Sprayer
Little Giant
4 row
P & Sprayer
Cog drive ,
barrel con-
tainer, air
tank hehind.
Barrel mounted
on steel frame
chain drive
traction.
Horizontal
barrel with
traction
pump.
Price
Hot
given
-47-
3PRAYER TYPES.
GHAIU DRIVE, VERTIGAI BARREL TYPE.
Fame of Firm
Hurst Mfg.
Company
Field Force
Pump Company
Field Force
Pump Company
Field Force
Pump Company
Field Force
Pump Company
Address
Canton,
Ohio
Piilmira ,
H. Y.
Elmira ,
U. Y.
Elmira,
U. Y,
Elmira,
i:. Y.
Particular
llame of Machine Merit
Price
Outfit #5
Sprays 4 rows, #68
half harrel
container,
chain drive.
booster Automatic |58.5C
Potato & Or- brush to keep
chard sprayer nozzles clean.
.Vat son
"Ospraymo"
Watson "Os-
praymo
Special"
Aroostook
High pressure, $75
chain drive ,
4 row sprayer.
Chain drive, :^89
high pressure ,
12 nozzle.
Six row-high
pressure me-
chanical agi-
tator with
automatic brush
to keep strain-
ers clean.
|85
-48-
SPRAYER TYPES.
HAHD PUMPED BARREL TYPE.
Hame of Firm
Brandt Mfg.
Company
Hurst Mfg.
Company
Field Force
Pump Company
Bat eman
Mfg. Go.
F. E. Myers
& Brothers
Address
Minneapo-
lis, Minn,
Cant on ,
Ohio
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Price
Elmira ,
?I. Y.
Grenloch,
I. J.
Ashland ,
Ohio
"Eureka" high
pressure
Hurst 20 Gal.
H, P.
Empire King
Iron Age
#190 D.
Myers 3 row
Compressed air $40
tank over bar-
rel suspended
from axle.
Light .mounted .;?28
on steel wheel-
harrow frame ,
3" tires, sprays
from adjustable
steel spray
arms.
4 row sprayer $32
hand pump pres-
sure.
Double action |30
pump . hand
power barrel
sprayer, mount-
ed on truck,
sprays 4 rov/s.
Side shot spray |18
with flexible with-
noazles, 2 for out
each row. Side bar-
delivery noz- rel,
zles.
-49-
3PRAYER TYPES.
COMPRESSED AIR KNAPSACK TTPE.
Name of Firm
F, E. Myers
& Brothers
Address
Ashland ,
Ohio
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Ripley Hardware Grafton,
Company 111,
Brandt Mfg.
Company
Hurst Mfg.
Company
Prairie Mfg,
Company
Field Force
Pump Co,
Bateman
Mfg. Co.
Minneapo-
lis, Minn,
Canton,
Ohio
Indianapo-
lis, Ind.
Elmi ra ,
N. Y.
Grenloch,
N. J.
Fountain Spray
Pump, knap-
sack
No. 15, 5 gal.
Comp. Air
"Perfection"
Knapsack
Hurst Com-
pressed Air,
No. 10
Double
cylinder
The Good News
compressed
air knapsack
#199 Compres-
sed air knap-
sack
Galvanized
iron rotind
corners and
operated by
rubber bulb
attached to
hose.
None in par-
ticular.
Price
1 bulb
£ bulbs
P
■?0
Extra strong Steel
tank of $5
double seams. Brass
$7.50
Used for all |5
fungicides ,
whitewashing,
etc. .carried
under arm.
7/ill throw
stream 30'
high and
charged in one-
half minute.
Galvanized
steel tank.
Strong, dur-
able , with
spring nose-
cock.
#5.501
to
|8
|5
to
.50
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Traverse Hill's Im- Capacity 5
City, Mich. proved knap- gals. Galvan-
sack Sprinkler ized steel
tank.
-DO-
SPRAYER TYPES.
CANTEEl HAND TYPE.
Fame of Firm
F. E, Myers
& Brothers
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Address
Ashland ,
Ohio
Traverse
City, Mich.
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Faultless
sprayer
Plunger
Canteen
sprayer
Price
Great force
Brass
to spray.
$16
air chamber
per
securely
doz.
fastened to
Tin $7
tank.
per
doz.
Hand com-
— •<■ —
pressed air
pull rod type
•
-51-
DIGGER TYPES.
CHAIlil ELEVATOR TYPE.
Kame of Firm
Waters Mfg.
Company
Addreas
Racine ,
Wis.
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Price
American Potato Hammond,
Machinery Co. Ind.
The "Best"
New American
Elevator
Digger.
A.B. Farquhar
Company
Pugh Mfg.
Company
York, Pa.
Topeka ,
Kans.
Farquhar
Elevator
Pugh
Akron Culti-
vator Co.
Akron,
Ohio
Hist
Hoover Mfg.
Company
Hoover Mfg,
Company
Avery,
Ohio
Avery,
Ohio.
#300 "Hoover"
#301 "Hoover"
Cog driven, $90
chain elevator
digger easy to
operate.
Chain elevator
easy to oper-
ate from seat.
Special gravel
shields. Yine
separator, 4 H.
digger.
Special gravel |100
shield. Made
with heavy and
light chains,
chain elevator.
Main carrying
chain shaft
has reversihle
brass box com-
pression grease
cups , chain
elevator.
Front wheels
may be raised
off ground so
as to turn
around on the
main wheels.
Chain drive
elevator dig-
ger.
Agitating rear
rack and vine
separator.
Same as #300
except a riddle
elevator.
-52-
DIGGEH TYPES.
CHAIK ELEVATOR TYPE.
TTame of Firm
Bate man Mfg.
C ompany
Bateman Mfg.
Company
Bateman Mfg.
Company
Champion Potato
Machinery Co.
McKenzle Bros,
Mfg. Company
Reuther Mfg.
Company
Gowanda Agr.
Works
Gowanda Agr.
forks
Address
Grenloch,
N. J.
Grenloch,
N. J.
Grenloch,
I. J.
Hammond ,
Ind.
La Crosse,
iffls.
Name of Machine
#155 Iron Age
#156 Iron Age
#157 Iron Age
Particular
Merit Price
Cog drive, #85
chain eleva-
tor.
Same as #155 $73
except narrow-
er elevator.
Cam drive |85
shaker to agi-
tate dirt from
tubers. Light-
er draft than
most E horse
diggers.
0. E. Champion Light draft.
Badger
East Aurora, Reuther
IS, Y.
Gowanda ,
U, Y.
Gowanda ,
1. Y.
Gowanda
Hamburg
Knox Patent
Digs on slope |90
as well as
level, on
strong land,
as well as
sand,
Ho scattering,
elevator out of
gear when point
is out of ground.
Light draft,
simple constuc-
tion, chain
drive, eleva-
tor digger.
Cog drive, wide $75
shovel raising
whole hill into
shaker.
Aspinwall
Mfg. Co.
Jackson,
Mich,
Aspinwall
Chain specially
designed for
wear.
-53-
DIGGER TYPES.
DISC ROLIER ELEVATOR TYPE.
Name of Firm
Bateman Mfg.
Company
Address
Grenloch,
N. J.
Particular
Kame of Machine Merit
#160 Iron Age
I
Price
Same as #157 $118
except roller
bearings to
elevate tubers.
SPIDER, ROTARY FORK TYPE.
CTame of Firm
Stevens Mfg.
C ompany
Address
Decatur,
111.
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Stevens
little soil
carried,
tubers dug and
elevated by a
rotary fork.
Price
-54-
DIGGER TYPES.
SHOVEL PLOW SHAXER TYPE.
Hame of Firm
3. L. Allen
Company
A. B. Farquhar
Company
A.B.Farquhar
Company
H. .7. Bought en
Rock Island
Plow Co.
B. F. Avery
& Sons
B, F. Avery
Ik Sons
iiddress
Philadel-
phia, Pa.
Particular
Name of Machine Merit
Price
York, Pa. Gilt Edge
York, Pa. Success, Jr.
Moorestown, King of the
U. J. Potato Field
Rock Island, #3 Ratteer
111.
Louisville,
Ky.
Louisville ,
Ky.
Improved Planet, Series of plow |18
Jr. shares which
VVhite Potato slice up fur-
digger rows, push
aside tops
and weeds,
carry tubers
to surface.
Wings on $45
shovel point.
Wings on |12
shovel point.
Low priced,
simplicity,
consists of
shovel point
and two lat-
eral riders
of bars to
deposit tubers
in double row.
Peculiar sha-
king device
back of
shovel point,
simple and
cheap.
Plow digger
with steel half
fingers rollers
coulter and
disc for clear-
ing away vines.
Shaker bars
behind plow
and adjustable
gauge wheels.
Avery's ITo.E
Avery's
Shaker #10
-55-
DIGGER TYPES.
SHOVEL P10'.7 SHAKER TYPE.
Name of Firm
G. W. Jessup
Address
Moorestown,
U. J.
Particular
Uame of Machine Merit
Grange
Price
S55
Racine-Sattley
Company
Vulcan Plow
Company
Springfield,
111.
Evansville,
Ind.
"Rustler"
Vulcan
Turns wide
14" space,
light, not
adapted to
hill digging.
Shovel plow
shaker style.
Simple, shovel $10
plow, bar
attach applic-
able to small
acreage where
expensive dig-
ger is not
advantageous.
Shunk Plow
Company
Bucyrus ,
Ohio
Shunk
Cheap and best
only for small
growers.
Moline Plow
Company
Moline,
111.
Moline
Cheap . for
small grower.
Pari in &
Orendorff
Canton,
111.
P. & 0.
Cheap , shovel
plow shaker,
small areas.
Eureka Mower
Company
Utica,
U. Y.
Eureka
Designed for
small acreage.
Geo. //.Jessup
Moorestown,
N. J.
Eastern Shore
Brings 95^ to
surface.
ROTARY REEL TYPE.
Fame of Firm
Allen Foundry
Company
Address
Corning,
H. Y.
Name of Machine
Boss
Particular
Merit
Price
Light draft. %0
-56-
MISCEILAITEOUS POTATO MACHITIERY.
SEED, GUTTERS.
- Fame of Firm
Address
Hame of Xaehine
Particular
Merit Prici
Pugh Mfg.
Company
Topeka,
Eans.
"Gem" cutter
For large po-
tatoes 2-1/E"
or over.
American Potato
Machinery Go.
Hammond ,
Ind.
"American"
Potato Cutter
Simple con-
struction, set
blades across
basket, stick
potato on
blades and
force blade
through pota-
to with mallet.
Pugh Mfg.
Company
Topeka,
Kans.
Junior Gem
Gutter
Cuts large,
medium and
small halves,
thirds and
quarters all
in one stroke.
Springer Bros.
Mfg. Go.
Edwards-
ville.Ill.
Springer
Cutter
Hone in partic- --
ular.
Eureka Mower
Company
Utica,
H. Y.
Eureka Potato
Cutter
Operated by
foot lever.
Champion Potato
Machinery Co.
Hammond ,
Ind.
O.K. Champion
Seed Potato
Cutter
Operated by
foot lever.
-57-
MISCEILAKEOUS POTATO MACHIETERY.
POTATO H0S3 OR EILLER3.
Name of Firm
Address
Syracuse Chilled Syracuse,
Plow Company H". Y.
Particular
ITame of Machine Merit
Syracuse Potato Adjustable
Hoe discs for
covering or
ridging po-
tato rows.
Price
S. A, loose
Hamburg ,
Corn & Potato
Can hill from
& Son
Pa.
Eiller
4" to 9" high
DUSTERS.
Hame of Firm
McWhorter Mfg.
Company
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Potato Imple-
ment Co.
Address
Riverton,
H. J.
Traverse
City, Mich,
Traverse
City, Mich.
Uame of Machine
2 and 4 Row
Paris Green
dusters
Acme Plaster
sifter
Acme Double
Powder Gim
Particular
Merit Price
light, simple.
Paris Green
and Lime 1 to
£5, feed
through 4
openings.
Cylinder
swings on
handle to
shake out plas-
ter of Paris
Green.
Double blast
leather bellov/s.
-58-
MISCELLAHi^OUS POTATO Ii/LACHIFERY.
GOMBIMD DIGGSRC AED PICEESS.
Hame of Elrm
Hoover Mfg.
Company
Address
Avery ,
Ohio
Particular
Same of Machine Merit
#302 Combined
Digger and
Picker
Digs and de-
posits tubers
in crates or
in wind rows
crosswise of
field.
Price
POTATO SORTERS OR GRADERS.
Particular
ITame of
Firm
Address
Hame of Machine Merit
Price
American Potato
Machinery Co,
Hammond ,
Ind.
Potato Grader
and Sorter
Operated by
means of a
swinging ar-
rangement .
Pugh Mfg.
Company
Topeka,
Kans.
"Idaho"
Sorter
A shaker sort(
simple and
durable.
=r
Pugh Mfg.
Company
Topeka ,
Kans.
Pugh Potato
Sorter
Endless flex-
ible screen.
F. Boggs
Atlanta,
F. Y.
Sorter and
Grader
Inclined
shaker.
^44
$56
Champion Potato Hammond,
Machinery Co, Ind,
O.K. Champion Operated by
potato sorter fly wheel.
-59-
SPECIAI POTATO F-aghii;e:?y.
Planter Types,
Fig. VII.
The 2 -man Platform Type,
■60-
Planter Types (Continued)
'^ '^^f^^Vjjy^ '
Sectional View of Aspinwall Planter No. 3
A — Coverer
B — Concave
C — Concave Tension Spring
D — Concave Spring Adjusting Nut
E-^Coverer Spring
F — Agitator Spring
G — Gears
H— Lifting Handle
I — Tripper
J — Picker
K — Furrow Opener
Fig. YIII.
The 1-man Picker Type,
-61-
Planter Types ( Continued )
Fig. IX.
The 1-man Cup Delivery Type,
-6E-
Planter Types ( Continued )
Fig. Z.
The 1-man Hopper Feed Type,
-6'd-
Planter Types (Continued)
Fig. lil, ' ' ■'
The Tubular Hand Type,
Pig. III.-
The Single Piece Hand Type.
-64-
Sprayer Types.
Fig. XIII.
The Chain Drive Horizontal Barrel Type,
-65-
S prayer Types f Oontln-ged )
I Double wheel drive. Spray
iboom, adjustable to cover the
rows. Entirely Automatic
with Agitator and Briishe;
which stir the liquid
and keep the strainers
clean.
Nozzles adjust-
able to rows from
21/2 to 3 ft. apart.
Wheels adjustable
on axle any width
from 66 inches to
72 inches apart,
regularly fitted
with thills for
one animal.
Fig. 600
Eig. 2IV.
The Chain Drive Vertical Barrel Type.
-66-
Sprayer Types f Continued )
Fig. 2Y.
The Hand Pump Barrel Type,
-67.
Sprayer Types ( Gontinued)
Fig. XVI.
The Knapsack Compressed Air Type.
Pig. ZVII.
The PlTinger Pximp Canteen Type.
-68-
Slgger Types .
Fig. XYIII.
Chain Elevator Type.
*'H^x^O>-.,
Fig. XIX.
Diso Roller Elevator Type.
■69-
Dlgger Types ( Continued )
Fig. IX.
Rotary Fork Type,
Fig. x:a.
Rotary Reel Type.
-70-
Dlgger Types f Continued )
Pig. IXII.
Ihe Shovel -Plow Shaker Type,
-71-
MI SCELLANE0U3 POTATO MACHIUERY.
Seed Gutters.
Fig. XZIII.
Triple -cut Hand Type,
POTATO CUTTER.
Here is a handy device for cutting
seed potatoes. It is made of a planij 2
ft. long, 7 in. wide, witli a liole 5x8 in.
' ^,:'/;};i////,//////y///^'//:j//,///-//////;77zm
POTATO CUTTER.
in t!ie center. Knives cross eaeli ctlier
at rigtit angles in tliis tipeuing. Tiie
cutter is placed over a potato crate,
box or barrel, the potatoes laid upon
tlie knives one at a time, and the han-
dle brought down. — Elmer Hartman.
Fig. ICilV.
Hinge Plank Type.
Fig. rxv.
Foot Pedal Type,
-72-
MI3GSILAKE0US POTATO MAGHIHSRY (Continued)
Hoes or Hillers.
Fig. XXYl.
low Ridge Type.
Fig. XXVII.
High Ridge Type.
-75-
MI3CEILAIIE0US POTATO MACEIHERY (Continued)
Dusters.
No. 314
Fig. XXVIII.
Bivalve Bellows Type.
Fig. XXIX.
Shaker Bucket Type.
-74-
MISCELLAUEOUS POTATO rUGHINERY (Continued)
Combined Diggers and Pickers,
Pig. m.
-75-
MISCELLAIISOUS POTATO MACHIUERY (Continued)
Sorters and Graders.
Fig. XZXI.
Screen Shaker Type.
CONSERVATION
K)6 fo'v-ther ac4i'o'^
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11